DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 14, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
As directed by the amendment received on July 14, 2026, claims 1, 16, and 23 have been amended. Claims 7, 19, and 21 were previously canceled. Claims 24-25 are new. Accordingly, claims 1-6, 8-18, 20, and 22-25 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on July 14, 2026, have been considered and an action on the merits follows. Any objections and rejections previously put forth in the Office Action dated April 15, 2026, are hereby withdrawn unless specifically noted below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “a left leg and right leg” at line 1. It is unclear if the limitation is attempting to claim left and right pant legs of the athletic shorts or if the legs are meant to refer to legs of a wearer. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “a left pant leg and a right pant leg”. The terminology should also be changed at line 3 of the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art. See 101 rejection below for additional discussion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 24, as best can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 24 recites the limitation “a left leg and right leg” at line 1. In order to overcome this rejection, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “a left pant leg and a right pant leg. The terminology should also be changed at line 3 of the claim.
Claim 24 further recites the limitation “the back fabric panel wraps around interior and exterior sides of the left leg and right leg to cover a second portion of the front side of a wearer”. In order to overcome this rejection, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “the back fabric panel wraps around interior and exterior sides of the left pant leg and the right pant leg to cover a second portion of the front side of a wearer when worn”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0016238 to Camilleri (hereinafter, “Camilleri”), in view of US 2020/0037675 to Schutz (hereinafter, “Schutz”), in view of US 2021/0219628 to Rendone (hereinafter, “Rendone”), and in view of US 2017/0295856 to Gosse et al. (hereinafter, “Gosse”).
Regarding claim 1, Camilleri teaches athletic shorts (See Camilleri, Figs. 2-4 and 20; pants (100) can be shorts as depicted in Fig. 20; shorts (100) are capable of being used during athletic activities; abstract; [0034], [0058]), comprising: a front fabric panel formed of a first type of fabric and configured to cover a portion of a front side of a wearer (See Camilleri, Figs. 2-4 and 20; front pieces (110) of shorts (100) formed of a first fabric and capable of covering a portion of a front side of a hypothetical wearer; [0056]; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)); a back fabric panel formed of a second type of fabric and joined to the front fabric panel and configured to cover a portion of a back side of the wearer (See Camilleri, Figs. 2-4 and 20; back piece (116) of shorts formed of a second fabric and capable of covering a portion of a back side of a hypothetical wearer; back piece (116) is joined to front piece (110) along side seams (160)), wherein the back fabric panel has a greater area than the front fabric panel (See Camilleri, Figs. 2-4 and 20; back piece (116) has a greater area than front piece (110)); wherein the front fabric panel has a first length in a longitudinal direction extending from an upper end of the athletic shorts to a lower end of the athletic shorts, the back fabric panel has a second length in the longitudinal direction (See Camilleri, Figs. 2-4 and 20; front piece (110) and back piece (116) of shorts (100) each have respectively lengths in the longitudinal direction extending from upper end to lower end of shorts (100)); wherein the back fabric panel comprises an upper end, a lower end, a left edge, a right edge (See Camilleri, Fig. 20; back piece (116) includes upper end proximate waistband (106), lower end at leg openings, and left and right edges at side seams (160)), and a unitary piece of the second type of fabric that spans from the upper end of the back fabric panel to the lower end of the back fabric panel and from a left edge of the back fabric panel to the right edge of the back fabric panel (See, Camilleri, Figs. 2-4 and 20; back piece (116) is a single piece of fabric spanning between upper, lower, and left and right edges; [0047]).
That said, although the front panel and the back panel of Camilleri have a first length and a second length, respectively, Camilleri is silent to the first length being less than the second length.
However, Schutz, in a related lower body garment art for a wheelchair user, is directed to a pair of adaptive pants for a wheelchair user (See Schutz, Figs. 1A-2; abstract). More specifically, Schutz teaches a front panel and a back panel of a lower body garment having first and second lengths, respectively, the first length being less than the second length (See Schutz, Fig. 2; height of back panel of garment (100) has a greater height than that of a front panel; [0042]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to gradually increase the length of the shorts of Camilleri from front to back as disclosed by Schutz in order to allow for a more comfortable fit for a user while in a seated position, such as when seated in a wheelchair (See Schutz, [0042]; abstract).
That said, the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri is silent to the second type of fabric being different from the first type of fabric and wherein the second type of fabric comprises a fabric weight heavier than a fabric weight of the first type of fabric.
However, Rendone, in a related sport garment art, is directed to a sports garment, such as a bra, formed of differing front and back fabric panels (See Rendone, Figs. 10-12; abstract). More specifically, Rendone teaches the second type of fabric being different from the first type of fabric and wherein the second type of fabric comprises a fabric weight heavier than a fabric weight of the first type of fabric (See Rendone, Figs. 10-12; front panel (1150) of garment comprises a fabric material lighter than a fabric material of back panel (1200); [0096], [0099]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the front of the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri from a lighter weight material type than a back of the garment as disclosed by Rendone for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, reducing a weight of the garment overall (See Rendone, [0096], [0099]).
That said, the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri is silent to a left pocket located between the front fabric panel and the back fabric panel such that the left pocket separates a first portion of the front fabric panel from a first portion of the back fabric panel; and a right pocket located between the front fabric panel and the back fabric panel such that the right pocket separates a second portion of the front fabric panel from a second portion of the back fabric panel.
However, Gosse, in a related garment art, is directed to a lower body garment having a pair of pockets along a lateral seam (See Gosse, Figs. 1-3; abstract). More specifically, Gosse teaches a left pocket located between the front fabric panel and the back fabric panel such that the left pocket separates a first portion of the front fabric panel from a first portion of the back fabric panel; and a right pocket located between the front fabric panel and the back fabric panel such that the right pocket separates a second portion of the front fabric panel from a second portion of the back fabric panel (See Gosse, Figs. 1-3; left and right sides of garment (14) can each include a pocket (32) along seam between front panel (20) and back panel (22); each pocket separates portions of front and back panels on left and right sides; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include the pocket disclosed by Gosse between the front and back panels of the of the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, providing storage for a wearer’s items.
Regarding claim 2, the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri (i.e., Camilleri in view of Schutz, Rendone, and Gosse, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein: a lateral direction is defined perpendicularly to the longitudinal direction, and the back fabric panel is joined to the front fabric panel at lateral seams (See Camilleri Figs. 2-4 and 20; front piece (110) and back piece (116) are joined along lateral seams (160), the lateral direction being perpendicular to the longitudinal direction).
Regarding claim 4, the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri (i.e., Camilleri in view of Schutz, Rendone, and Gosse, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the portion of the back side of the wearer extends higher on the wearer than the portion of the front side of the wearer (See Schutz, Figs. 1A-2; the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri as described above as modified by Schutz extend higher on back side of wearer than front side; Examiner notes that the limitation further describes functional limitations of claim 1; that said, the portion of the back side of the hypothetical wearer is capable of extending higher on the hypothetical wearer than the portion of the front side of the hypothetical wearer).
Regarding claim 5, the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri (i.e., Camilleri in view of Schutz, Rendone, and Gosse, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches a waistband defining the upper end of the athletic shorts, wherein the waistband comprises a curved shape configured to rise higher above the back fabric panel than above the front fabric panel (See Camilleri, Figs. 2-4; waistband (106) of the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri as described above as modified by Schutz would have a curved shape that rises above the back panel higher than the front panel; waistband (106) defines an upper end of the modified athletic shorts).
Regarding claim 6, the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri (i.e., Camilleri in view of Schutz, Rendone, and Gosse, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 5 above) further teaches wherein the waistband has an arcuate lateral profile that curves upward from above a midpoint of the front fabric panel to above a midpoint of the back fabric panel (See Camilleri, Figs. 2-4; waistband (106) of the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri as described above as modified by Schutz would have an arcuate lateral profile that curves upward from above a midpoint of front panel to above a midpoint of back panel).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camilleri in view of Schutz, Rendone, and Gosse, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO2014/155487 to Takamoto et al. (hereinafter, “Takamoto”).
Regarding claim 3, the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri (i.e., Camilleri in view of Schutz, Rendone, and Gosse, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein: the front fabric panel comprises an upper end and a lower end that are opposite ends of the front fabric panel along the longitudinal direction (See Camilleri, Figs. 2-4 and 20; front piece (110) of shorts (100) includes upper end and lower end at opposite ends of front piece (110) along height of shorts (100)), the upper end and the lower end of the back fabric panel are opposite ends of the back fabric panel along the longitudinal direction (See Camilleri, Figs. 2-4 and 20; back piece (116) includes upper end and lower end at opposite ends of back piece (116) along height of shorts (100)), the upper end of the back fabric panel is higher along the longitudinal direction than the upper end of the front fabric panel (See Schutz, Figs. 1A-2; the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri as described above as modified by Schutz include back panel that extends higher along longitudinal direction than upper end of front panel).
That said, the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri is silent to the lower end of the front fabric panel is lower along the longitudinal direction that the lower end of the back fabric panel.
However, Takamoto, in a related lower body garment art, is directed to lower body wear for sports (See Takamoto, Figs. 1A-1B; abstract). More specifically, Takamoto teaches the lower end of the front fabric panel is lower along the longitudinal direction that the lower end of the back fabric panel (See Takamoto, Fig. 1A; lower end of front of shorts is lower than lower end of back of shorts along height of shorts).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to make the lower end of the front panel of the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri lower than the lower end of the back as disclosed by Takamoto for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, aesthetic purposes as desired by the wearer and/or to provide additional protective coverage for the front side of the wearer’s leg as desired by the wearer.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camilleri in view of Schutz, Rendone, and Gosse, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2016/0040325 to Hussey et al. (Hereinafter, “Hussey”).
Regarding claim 8, the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri (i.e., Camilleri in view of Schutz, Rendone, and Gosse, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) is silent to wherein the first type of fabric comprises a breathability less than a breathability of the second type of fabric.
However, Hussey, in a related sport garment art, is directed to a textile construction for a sport garment in various embodiments (See Hussey, Figs. 1-8B; abstract). More specifically, Hussey teaches wherein the first type of fabric comprises a breathability less than a breathability of the second type of fabric (second textile panel positioned in areas of desired breathability is a knitted eyelet mesh fabric having increased elasticity and breathability compared to other portions of the garment; See Hussey, [0113]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the back panel of the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri from the knitted eyelet mesh fabric disclosed by Hussey for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, providing increased breathability and flexibility on the rear of the garment as desired by Camilleri which seeks improved comfort for a wearer while in a seated position such as a wheelchair user (See Camilleri, Fig. 2; [0001]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 9, the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri (i.e., Camilleri in view of Schutz, Rendone, and Gosse, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) is silent to wherein the first type of fabric comprises a stretchability less than a stretchability of the second type of fabric.
However, Hussey, in a related sport garment art, is directed to a textile construction for a sport garment in various embodiments (See Hussey, Figs. 1-8B; abstract). More specifically, Hussey teaches wherein the first type of fabric comprises a stretchability less than a stretchability of the second type of fabric (second textile panel positioned in areas of desired breathability and flexibility is a knitted eyelet mesh fabric having increased elasticity and breathability compared to other portions of the garment; See Hussey, [0113]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the back panel of the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri from the knitted eyelet mesh fabric disclosed by Hussey for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, providing increased breathability and flexibility on the rear of the garment as desired by Camilleri which seeks improved comfort for a wearer while in a seated position such as a wheelchair user (See Camilleri, Fig. 2; [0001]-[0005]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camilleri in view of Schutz, Rendone, and Gosse, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2010/0071115 to Sadato (hereinafter, “Sadato”).
Regarding claim 10, the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri (i.e., Camilleri in view of Schutz, Rendone, and Gosse, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) is silent to wherein the first type of fabric comprises an abrasion resistance greater than an abrasion resistance of the second type of fabric.
However, Sadato, in a related sport garment art, is directed to an improved abrasion resistance fabric for use in textile products such as clothing products (See Sadato, abstract). More specifically, Sadato teaches wherein the first type of fabric comprises an abrasion resistance greater than an abrasion resistance of the second type of fabric (woven fabrics, such twill, are preferable for use in sports clothing which require abrasion resistance; See Sadato, [0065]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the front panel of the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri from the twill weave fabric disclosed by Sadato for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, providing increased abrasion resistance on an exposed outer surface of a garment made to be worn by a seated wearer, wherein the back panel would not be exposed when the wearer is seated (See Camilleri, Fig. 2; [0043]-[0044]; Sadato, [0065]).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camilleri in view of Schutz, Rendone, and Gosse, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sadato and in view of Hussey.
Regarding claim 11, the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri (i.e., Camilleri in view of Schutz, Rendone, and Gosse, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) is silent to wherein the first type of fabric is woven.
However, Sadato, in a related sport garment art, is directed to an improved abrasion resistance fabric for use in textile products such as clothing products (See Sadato, abstract). More specifically, Sadato teaches wherein the first type of fabric is woven (woven fabrics, such twill, are preferable for use in sports clothing which require abrasion resistance; See Sadato, [0065]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the front panel of the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri from the twill weave fabric disclosed by Sadato for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, providing increased abrasion resistance on an exposed outer surface of a garment made to be worn by a seated wearer, wherein the back panel would not be exposed when the wearer is seated (See Camilleri, Fig. 2; [0043]-[0044]; Sadato, [0065]).
That said, the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri (i.e., Camilleri in view of Schutz, Rendone, Gosse, and Sadato, as discussed above) is silent to the second type of fabric is knitted.
However, Hussey, in a related sport garment art, is directed to a textile construction for a sport garment in various embodiments (See Hussey, Figs. 1-8B; abstract). More specifically, Hussey teaches the second type of fabric is knitted (second textile panel positioned in areas of desired breathability and flexibility is a knitted eyelet mesh fabric having increased elasticity and breathability compared to other portions of the garment; See Hussey, [0113]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the back panel of the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri from the knitted eyelet mesh fabric disclosed by Hussey for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, providing increased breathability and flexibility on the rear of the garment as desired by Camilleri which seeks improved comfort for a wearer while in a seated position such as a wheelchair user (See Camilleri, Fig. 2; [0001]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 12, the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri (i.e., Camilleri in view of Schutz, Rendone, Gosse, Sadato, and Hussey, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 11 above) further teaches wherein the first type of fabric is twill (front panel, as modified above, is a twill woven fabric; See Sadato, [0065]) and the second type of fabric is mock eyelet (back panel, as modified, is a knitted eyelet mesh fabric; See Hussey, [0113]).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camilleri in view of Schutz, Rendone, and Gosse, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPN 5,918,310 to Farahany (hereinafter, “Farahany”).
Regarding claim 13, the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri (i.e., Camilleri in view of Schutz, Rendone, and Gosse, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) is silent to pads, wherein one of the pads is located within each of the left pocket and the right pocket.
However, Farahany, in a related garment art, is directed to a lower body garment having removable pads for protecting a wearer’s hip region (See Farahany, Fig. 1; abstract). More specifically, Farahany teaches pads, wherein one of the pads is located within each of the left pocket and the right pocket (See Farahany, Fig. 1; pockets (24, 25) each include removable pads (31, 32)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include the removable pads disclosed by Farahany in the pockets of the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri in order to provide optional protection in areas of the hip region most susceptible to injury from falls or the like (See Farahany, Col. 1, lines 33-35).
Regarding claim 14, the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri (i.e., Camilleri in view of Schutz, Rendone, Gosse, and Farahany, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 13 above) further teaches wherein the left pocket and the right pocket are each configured to be positioned at a respective hip of the wearer (See Gosse, Figs. 1-3; pockets (32) are capable of being positioned at respective hips of a hypothetical wearer).
Regarding claim 15, the modified athletic shorts of Camilleri (i.e., Camilleri in view of Schutz, Rendone, Gosse, and Farahany, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 13 above) further teaches wherein the left pocket and the right pocket are open pockets and the pads are removably disposed in the pockets (See Gosse, Figs. 1-3; pockets (32) are open for removably receiving items such as the pads of Farahany as applied in the modification above).
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0296580 to Demarest et al. (hereinafter, “Demarest”), in view of US 2017/0295862 to Harris (hereinafter, “Harris”), and in view of Gosse.
Regarding claim 23, Demarest teaches an athletic outfit, comprising: a jersey (See Demarest, Figs. 1-2; garment (100) forms a jersey outfit) comprising: two fabric panels (See Demarest, Figs. 1-2; front panel (102) and back panel (108) each appear to be formed of fabric material; [0041]); two lateral seams that join the two fabric panels (See Demarest, Figs. 1-2; left and right lateral seams (112) joining front panel (102) and back panel (108); garment can be formed with back panel extended directly to connect to front panel at lateral seam; [0031], [0034]), two arm openings, wherein each of the two arm openings comprises a lowest point, a front most point, a back most point, and an intersect point at which a respective one of the two lateral seams intersects a respective one of the two arm openings, wherein the intersect point is nearer to either the front most point or the back most point than to the lowest point (See annotated Fig. 2 of Demarest below; each of left and right arm opening includes respective lowest, front most, and back most points; lateral seams intersect respective arm openings at intersect points which are nearer to the front most point than the lowest point); and two uninterrupted portions of fabric, wherein each of the two uninterrupted portions of fabric is comprised by either one of the two fabric panels, and wherein each of the two uninterrupted portions of fabric extends under a respective one of the two arm openings from the intersect point of the respective one of the two arm openings to an opposed point on an opposite side of the respective one of the arm openings from the intersect point (See annotated Fig. 2 of Demarest below; as discussed above, garment can be formed with back panel extended directly to connect to front panel at lateral seams on left and right sides of the garment such that on each side the back panel extends to the intersect point; the back panel would form an uninterrupted portion of the back panel on each side of the garment that extends under a respective arm opening from the intersect point back to a point on an opposite side of the arm opening; [0034]; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
PNG
media_image1.png
504
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Demarest
That said, although Demarest appears to teach that the panels are formed of fabric (See Demarest, [0041]), Demarest does not explicitly discuss that the front panel is formed of fabric.
That said, Harris, in a related garment art, is directed to an paneled article of apparel, i.e., a jersey, formed of fabric (See Harris, Figs. 1-3; abstract). More specifically, Harris teaches that the panels are formed of fabric (See Harris, Figs. 1-3; panels of garment (10) are made of fabric; [0013]).
It would have at least been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the front and back panels from fabric material as disclosed by Harris for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, forming the garment from a well-known material that would be comfortable against a wearer’s body (See Harris, [0013]).
That said, the modified athletic outfit of Demarest (i.e., Demarest in view of Harris, as discussed above) is silent to athletic shorts.
However, Gosse, in a related garment art, is directed to a lower body garment (See Gosse, Figs. 1-3; abstract). More specifically, Gosse teaches athletic shorts (See Gosse, Figs. 1-2; shorts (14) can be worn as outfit with upper body jersey).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include the shorts of Gosse as part of the modified athletic outfit of Demarest for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, forming a complete outfit for covering both an upper and lower body of a wearer.
Regarding claim 25, the modified athletic outfit of Demarest (i.e., Demarest in view of Harris and Gosse, as discussed with respect to claim 23 above) wherein the intersect point is nearer to the front most point than to the lowest point (See annotated Fig. 2 of Demarest above; intersect point is nearer front most point than lowest point).
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant’s amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant’s arguments, filed July 14, 2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, as Applicant’s arguments appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18, 20, and 22 are allowed.
Claim 24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 16, although Camilleri in view of Schutz teach the limitations relative to the athletic shorts, and Demarest in view of Harris teach the limitations relative to the jersey as discussed in the rejection above with respect to claims 1 and 23, respectively, further combination of all of Camilleri, Schutz, Demarest, and Harris to arrive at the combined athletic outfit of claim 16 in its entirety would constitute hindsight reconstruction based on Applicant’s disclosure. Said another way, it would not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to arrive at the combined athletic outfit of claim 16, each component garment having all the required limitations of the claim, in light of the prior art of record absent Applicant’s disclosure. Regarding claim 24, the lateral seams of Camilleri are not positioned such that the back fabric panel wraps around interior and exterior sides of the pants legs to cover a portion of the front side of a wearer when worn. Gosse does not extend around an interior side of the pant legs as required by the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLINTON T OSTRUP can be reached at (571) 272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights